Tuesday, 26 May 2015

Occasionally, one comes across something that touches a nerve. That
happened to me when reading a section of the paper entitled Natural History's Place in Science and
Society by Joshua J. Tewksbury and his 16 co-authors [1]. They wrote:

The stature of natural history
within many academic institutions will depend on its capacity to generate
revenue and contribute to academic currencies used to measure the success of individuals
and programs. In research-oriented universities, these currencies are typically
large grants, publications in high-impact-factor journals, and public recognition
for the institution. Disciplines that cannot compete in these currencies will
typically be given little attention in critical decisions surrounding hiring,
promotion, course offerings, degree programs, buildings and infrastructure, and
institutional direction. Even in institutions at which the focus on teaching is
more prevalent, disciplines such as natural history can be marginalized because
of the relatively high per-student cost of field- and collection-based courses
and because of these courses' low enrollments relative to those in higher
profile disciplines.

As a proud Emeritus Professor of Biology in a World-leading
University, I concur fully with this statement. In research-led universities,
there is often a disjunction between academic research and teaching and, as the
authors point out, it is the former that is used in hiring and reward. Courses
in Biology necessarily include basic studies but, instead of introducing
students to Natural History, Behaviour and Diversity, the majority are in
Cellular and Molecular Biology, reflecting the dramatic change that has come in
the subject over the last forty years. We now have a mechanistic approach, like
that of physics or chemistry, believing that understanding how genes work will
result in our understanding how organisms work. Unfortunately, it is much more
complex than that, but there is the possibility of making some great
discoveries along the way. One organism dominates above all others as a subject
for study and that is Homo sapiens. Even
organisms like fruit flies, or nematode worms, are used as proxies for humans
when investigating the effect of gene expression: the wide diversity of plants
and animals is considered of much lower importance.

I was so happy to teach in areas of Biology in which I had
an interest, but no research experience, and where I was able to be a Natural Historian
without being frowned upon by colleagues. I taught courses in Animal Form and
Function to second-year students and contributed lectures on the interactions
between predators and prey to a first-year class. Both were optional, but all students
had to study Cellular and Molecular Biology and all had to study Chemistry. To
look at the interactions of predators and prey, we began with predictive models
and then branched out into the "arms race", with adaptations of predators
to increase their catching efficiency and adaptations of prey to avoid attack.
I organised examples into different categories and we then let rip. While the
models were interesting, there was no question that talking about the various modifications
shown by animals (and by plants, as I took a liberal approach to the term
"prey") was what we all really enjoyed. I took a similar approach in
Animal Form and Function, beginning with fluid dynamics and then showing the
ways that animals move in water, on land and in the air. I also described different
categories of feeding mechanism and we again looked at examples in various
categories. Both sections were taught in an evolutionary context, so we began
with the more primitive examples and moved through a spectrum leading to the
more advanced. These courses were great to plan, and to teach, and we were able
to make interesting observations during practical classes; predator-prey
interactions being observed on a field course taught by some of my colleagues.
On that course, students were also able to study plants and animals in their
natural environment.

Tewksbury et al. [1] state:

Urbanization and a lack of
exposure to nature, changes in affluence, a reduction of unstructured time for
children, and increased television and computer use have all been implicated in
the reduced public awareness of nature.

If any of that applied to my students, our course material
certainly opened their eyes and I hope that they remembered enough to be able
to pass on the information and to keep up their interest by making their own
observations. I think that Natural History is an important part of a university
degree in Biology, but others may argue that there are no jobs in this area, or
very few anyway, and that we should be training students solely for careers. Informed
professors in US universities have told me thatBiology students include a large cohort who are very interested in the
subject, but wish to go on to study Medicine. That's back to the concentration
on H. sapiens, and Biomedicine is now
a dominating part of Biology teaching, as so many academics work in this area
and it is perceived that there are many job opportunities in the field. Some
small number of students do go on to have careers in Natural History, or in
Ecology, but what of all those who take Biology degrees and then have careers
in quite different areas. Is there then a benefit in learning about Natural History?

No-one questions the importance of studying History, Philosophy
or Literature and there are a host of subjects that provide intellectual rewards
for those that pursue them. Graduates with degrees in these subjects benefit from
their studies, but they are hardly vocational in being a direct training for a
job. To be sure, there are professional historians, philosophers, reviewers,
writers, etc., and there are teachers and professors of these subjects, but the
majority of graduates will be working in quite different fields, while
using all sorts of approaches they have learned; often retaining their
interest for relaxation and for enhancing their world view. As the great
liberal scientific discipline, Natural History deserves to be highlighted
alongside these subjects and to form a central part of Biology degree
programmes, even for those whose main interest is in Medicine and its related
subjects. After all, it has been shown that walking in Nature is good for human
health [2] and it can be argued that prevention of illness, and palliative care,
are as important as drugs and surgery. How much better if these solitary walks,
or those in company, also provide a chance to explore the Romance of Natural History
[3].

Given the public lack of interest in the environment, and
the organisms it contains, one hopes that students of Natural History will
remember enough of their enthusiasms to make informed decisions when Nature is
threatened. Unquestionably, they will also have something to pass on to their
children and to those around them who are interested in such things. Can the
same be said for those following Modern Biology and Biomedicine? Probably, the answer
is "yes", but there is now a lack of balance and almost a belief that
Biology applied to Medicine is going to provide answers to all ills. It is not,
and much biomedical research is likely to be of little significance in finding
cures for illnesses and for allowing healthy ageing. All the resources thrown
in that direction show an uncritical approach and it is surprising that this
extends to university administrators, academics and politicians throughout the
World. Of course, money cannot be made from Natural History in the way that it
can be from Biomedicine and the Pharmaceutical Industry, but isn't it time for
a fresh approach? Are University Heads and senior academics wearing something
analogous to the Emperor's New Clothes?

On a positive note, Tewksbury et al. [1] suggest a mechanism
to help University administrators find a better path:

The vitality of natural history
will depend on the willingness of professionals in the natural sciences to
self-identify as natural historians, to teach natural history, and to articulate
the importance of their expertise across a wide range of disciplines, through
lectures, conferences, professional societies, and public talks. Those
professionals who embrace the revitalization of natural history within and
beyond their institutions will lead and define the field for the twenty-first
century. This is not an easy path for early-career academics, but it is an essential
shift for established academics because they can use their tenure to validate
and promote the importance of natural history within and beyond their programs.

To facilitate the resurgence of Natural History, I suggest three
mechanisms that may help in Biology Departments (and elsewhere):

1. Income obtained from student fees, or supplied by governments
for student education, must be spent on teaching and on facilities for students
(it is recognised that a small percentage is also necessary for support services
and for administration, other than that related to teaching).

2. Research grants should only be given to those less than,
say, 40 years-old. This will encourage new thinking to become widespread; it
will reduce the impact of senior researchers on the development of ideas; and
it will empower younger researchers in developing their careers. Preferably,
there should be more grants and they should be smaller. Large capital schemes could
be co-operative, or sponsored by Industry, Government Departments or by endowments.
Senior aademics have an invaluable role to play here in supporting pools of
younger researchers and ensuring that experience counts for something....

3. Senior and Tenured Academics should be encouraged to
teach areas outside their discipline and the freshness that they bring from
their preparation for teaching, will make for an enthusiastic approach.

Of all the sub-disciplines of Biology, Natural History is likely
to benefit most from these changes and students will be provided with something
that they will keep for life. It will provide a better perspective on the
position of humans as organisms that are part of a wonderfully diverse World.

Monday, 18 May 2015

In an article in BioScience,
Joshua Tewksbury and 16 co-authors point out the decline in the study of
Natural History in Colleges and Universities in the USA, at a time when we are
in strong need of this discipline. They conclude [1]:

A renewed focus on the natural
history of organisms is central to the growth of basic and use-inspired
research and is also a critical step toward sustainable management and toward
providing increased predictive capacities and improved outcomes across
disciplines as diverse as health, agriculture, and conservation. However,
natural history in the twenty-first century will look different from that of
the nineteenth as this fundamental knowledge is applied to new frontiers and as
new technologies are used in the practice of natural history. Despite these differences,
however, the importance of natural history to science and society remains
timeless.

The article prompted Jennifer Frazer to make a post on The Artful Amoeba blog in Scientific American with the emotive
title: "Natural History is Dying, and We Are All the Losers" [2]. She
writes:

As a child, I had access to something
that few children do today: nature. I remember roaming the big yard and woods
around our rural Tennessee home solo at four, five, six years old. That quiet
time wandering, listening, and looking among the loblolly pines and playing in the
red dirt planted a love in me of nature that didn't germinate until years
later.

While she would have liked to have studied Natural History
at University, it was not available as a subject in its own right and she bemoans
the lack of Natural History training among contemporary teachers (the lack of
knowledge also applies to parents, I think). Frazer continues:

When kids do not grow up around natural
history, they become adults who are not only ignorant of natural history, but
who do not care about nature and view it as disposable and unimportant.

In schools, "environmental
education" has often replaced natural history, with its emphasis on
general structures and concepts like food webs or trophic levels.

However, she points out that any child using a microscope
has:

..access to a fascinating universe
of mites, springtails, and nematodes easily viewable in a bit of compost or
soil.. .. and is a far more engaging experience than mindlessly flipping
through photos in an exhibit or randomly pushing buttons.

This need for first-hand experience is a point well made and
it is not only important for recognising the diversity of Natural History, but
also how each organism affects other organisms and the processing of organic and
inorganic matter. Natural History then becomes more than scientific study and
includes something very rewarding, giving us a sense of wonder at all the life
around us, of which we are such a dominant part. Harking back to the Nineteenth
Century heyday of Natural History, it is what Philip Henry Gosse called the
Romance of Natural History. Gosse was fascinated by all the living things around
him and made a special study of aquatic organisms, observed using aquaria or in
small dishes viewed under a microscope. This is what Henry Gosse wrote in the
Preface to The Romance of Natural History
[3]:

There are more ways than one of
studying natural history. There is Dr Dryasdust's way; which consists of mere
accuracy of definition and differentiation; statistics as harsh and dry as the
skins and bones in the museum where it is studied. There is the
field-observer's way; the careful and conscientious accumulation and record of
facts bearing on the life-history of the creatures; statistics as fresh wand
bright as the forest or meadow where they are gathered in the dewy morning. And
there is the poet's way; who looks at nature through a glass peculiarly his
own; the æsthetic aspect, which
deals, not with statistics, but with the emotions of the human mind,-surprise,
wonder, terror, revulsion, admirations, love, desires, and so forth,-which are
made energetic by the contemplation of creatures around him.

It would be a pity if we lost sight of the latter when studying
the Natural History of animals, plants and micro-organisms, as it is an aspect
that clearly excites our interest in much of what we see around us. However, organisms
need to be seen in their natural surroundings or, if collected for close
examination, then viewed with a lens or microscope to enhance observations.

Of course, many wonders of Natural History cannot be seen
unless one travels to other countries and, failing that, we become dependent on television,
video, photographs, and electronic images to give us information. As alluded to
by Jennifer Frazer, the danger is that media images can be manipulated and
stacked with all the other images that we receive and often have anthropocentric
commentary, or fantasy, added. That's not the Romance of Natural History and
nor is it related to the science of the subject.

Sometimes, it is possible to feel that the decline of
Natural History has come with the burgeoning of received information through
various media, yet it is vital that we continue its study, both formally in
schools and universities, and as an absorbing hobby for all of us. Natural History is something
in which we should all have a first-hand interest and embracing the Romance, as
well as the other aspects, brings both satisfaction and a clearer understanding
of the position of humans on Earth. Long live the spirit of Henry Gosse for
showing us the way.

Thursday, 7 May 2015

There have been a lot of Bee Flies in our garden in the past
few weeks. Their forward-pointing proboscis and hovering skills make them easy
to recognise, although I admit that I used to think that they were a rather
unusual type of Bumble Bee. The confusion comes from their body shape and
covering of hairs, both of which make them resemble Bumble Bees, although they
are in the Order Diptera (true flies) not Order Hymenoptera (ants, bees and
wasps).

Bee Flies in the genus Bombylius
have a world-wide distribution [1], with 278 species being recognised, all with
similar life histories and feeding habits [2]. Their larvae are parasitoids (parasites
that kill their hosts) of the immature stages of Bumble Bees, and other solitary
bees and wasps, that all produce a brood in a nest hole in the ground. Eggs are
laid, or flicked into, the hole by the Bee Fly females and hatching larvae
migrate to find the larvae of the host and continue development. After pupation,
adult Bee Flies emerge to complete the cycle.

Both male and female Bombylius
adults feed on nectar, for which their forward-pointing proboscis is
well-adapted, and females also feed on pollen, which is required for the
development of eggs [2]. In this foraging activity, they are effective
pollinators of plants and the only cost to the plant is the production of nectar
and the excess pollen that is utilised as food. Interestingly, Boesi et al. [2]
write: "Foraging activities of host and parasitoid populations are
seasonally (and often daily) synchronized". The resemblance between Bee
Flies and their hosts thus extends to their behaviour as well as their appearance.

So, why do Bee Flies look, and behave, like Bumble Bees? Their
behaviour brings them into contact with potential hosts and increases the
chance of locating their nest holes, while their appearance may prevent attack
during egg-laying (although this is speculation). The appearance of Bee Flies
might also be explained by Batesian mimicry, deterring predators such as insectivorous birds by
resembling other insects with a powerful sting. Although we don't know the explanation, their
appearance, and behaviour, evolved by selection of advantageous genetic
mutations long before humans first appeared, although that would be disputed by
Creationists.

Whatever our views on the origins of living organisms, all
humans have a tendency to view Nature from a human perspective. However, we
need to be cautious of our anthropocentricity, as our perceptions may be quite
different to those of other animals. Perhaps the appearance of Bee Flies is
just a result of coincidence rather than the unconscious mimicry of the appearance
and behaviour of Bumble Bees? That does seem unlikely, but how are we to know?